The Styrofoam insulation on the window AC unit I bought last summer will [supposedly] last millions of years too. Will the intact unit?

What a bizarre and irrelevant tangent. Your analogy is absolutely horrible, and quite frankly, diminishing the effectiveness of your brilliantly disparaging commentary (that I thoroughly enjoyed) that follows.

Quote:

Considering the mass of fossils we have extracted from the ground and [thus far] lack of DNA from said fossils, I'd say it's a safe bet.

Judging by how many stars and planets we've found and [thus far] lack of life on these planets, I'd say it's a safe bet that we're alone in the universe.

/devilsadvocate

As one who believes in the scientific method as well, I don't make blanket statements determining what is true, false or has no basis for a conclusion because of the lack of data or evidence.

Quote:

One who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones.

*deleted mindless banter*

Apparently your ADHD denies you the ability to comprehend more than one post's worth of replies. Nice way to change the context of the direct discussion after the fact. Is comprehending what happened too adult of a puzzle for you? I can re-quote everything and show you where your context is skewed if absolutely necessary.

Quote:

I don't doubt that DNA can last a long time. But science works by the data we have at hand, and the data at hand says DNA isn't that resilient of a molecule because the only things that have DNA aren't over 100,000 years old.

Actually, I'm skeptical of this as well although by your 'peer review' standards it has been widely accepted as fact. It doesn't prove anything except the possibility that DNA could survive even longer in the right circumstances. And this scientific 'fact' is 4x your assertion that 100,000 years is the absolute maximum. Well, in this case, you're quite wrong.

Again, I'll restate the problems we face today: The real difficulty here is finding it as well as extracting it without damaging it. We're still working with comparatively stone-aged tools in this regard.

I'll make a horrible analogy of my own:

What do you think the success rate of a neurosurgeon performing blindfolded, with his hands tied behind his back only using stone tools guided by his teeth would be?

Quote:

There's a quote I heard somewhere that goes along the lines of

"Men educated in critical thinking are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees without certainty"

I am a firm believer in science, and science is skeptical by definition [or else peer review wouldn't exist. The only claims I've made are facts, pure and simple. I have good reason to doubt that there is DNA in the 70 million year old femur of a T rex for many reasons, the most obvious of which is the lack of scientific evidence despite having 5 years for it to surface.

Forgive me for requiring evidence before accepting some things as facts.

Instead of saying "You don't know" you're saying "It's not possible". So basically you disbelieve everything until you're told it's the truth and depending on what time frame you actually existed on this Earth you'd believe it was flat, that we were the center of the universe, or the center of the galaxy, or even the center of the solar system, or unique and alone as cognizant beings in the universe. The fact is, we do not yet know if it's possible to retrieve DNA from very old specimens... especially with current technology only that we have not yet done it.

This is actually pretty neat.. My observation though. Since its basically a clone of the dead mammoth, there's really no way of actual reproduction the old fashion way unless they find other sources of mammoth DNA and clone that one too. And even so 1 and 1 makes 2 then out pops number 3 and it ends there? Unless you want some inbreeding..Edited by orlywutlol - 1/19/11 at 11:39pm

What a bizarre and irrelevant tangent. Your analogy is absolutely horrible, and quite frankly, diminishing the effectiveness of your brilliantly disparaging commentary (that I thoroughly enjoyed) that follows.

The point I was trying to arrive at was just because a few parts of a system can be preserved indefinitely does not mean the entire system can be preserved. The individual atoms that make up the DNA strand may survive until the end of time. But that doesn't mean that DNA can as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenophobe

Judging by how many stars and planets we've found and [thus far] lack of life on these planets, I'd say it's a safe bet that we're alone in the universe.

On the subject of terrible analogies, comparing something finite [the lifespan of the DNA molecule] with something infinite [the universe] is just wrong.

Since you've taken the liberty of being first in the line of ad hominem attacks, If you're really so dense as to think such an analogy is logically sound, you might want to start padding your room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenophobe

As one who believes in the scientific method as well, I don't make blanket statements determining what is true, false or has no basis for a conclusion because of the lack of data or evidence.

I agree with you that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I was saying that there is no valid reason to believe that DNA could last 70,000,000 years. Thoughts of the cosmic teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn come to mind...

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenophobe

Apparently your ADHD denies you the ability to comprehend more than one post's worth of replies. Nice way to change the context of the direct discussion after the fact. Is comprehending what happened too adult of a puzzle for you? I can re-quote everything and show you where your context is skewed if absolutely necessary.

When you resort to personal attacks, you lose the argument. But I'm sure you knew that, so there must be some brilliant spark of ingenuity that my layman brain cannot find.

As to the context, no need, I'll do it for you.

Quote:

Really? Last I heard, the fossilization process destroys all the original organic material, replacing it with something that isn't susceptible to decay.

Plus, the T-rex bone that had 'soft tissue' in it didn't really have soft tissue, it simply hadn't ever been broken, so some of the basic chemicals that made up the organic matter were still present. IIRC, DNA can't last that long without decaying, and as such, we've never found a fossil with Dino DNA in it.

With particular emphasis on the bold. 70,000,000 year old dino bone that had stuff in it that went soft upon being re-hydrated contained no DNA, but had some of the organic molecules that DNA consist of.

I admit, I'm no geneticist or chemist, and I have no serious education on either subject. But you really have a way with warping words and trying to cram them down my throat.

Very interesting stuff. In light of this, I concede that point. However,

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenophobe

Actually, I'm skeptical of this as well although by your 'peer review' standards it has been widely accepted as fact. It doesn't prove anything except the possibility that DNA could survive even longer in the right circumstances. And this scientific 'fact' is 4x your assertion that 100,000 years is the absolute maximum. Well, in this case, you're quite wrong.

If you could show me where I asserted as fact that DNA only lasts 100,000 max, I'd love to see it, cause I sure can't find it. The closest I come is this:

Quote:

And as to the 'fossilized' eggs, DNA is thought to last up to a max of 100,000 years at best,

Considering as to your lack of ability to properly interpret words, I'll help you out a little. If you get distracted, it's okay. It happens.

The words "thought to" mean something along the lines of "as far as our current understanding shows" [Plus, there is the IIRC. I'm not dumb enough to commit to something totally unless I know it to be factual, and I'm not 100% sure about this].

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenophobe

Again, I'll restate the problems we face today: The real difficulty here is finding it as well as extracting it without damaging it. We're still working with comparatively stone-aged tools in this regard.

Yes. Science advances. And we may find out that DNA actually outlasts the universe. But my point is, the data at hand doesn't support 70,000,000 year old DNA. Sorry charlie, but if you wan't me to concede that point, I'll need more evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenophobe

I'll make a horrible analogy of my own:

What do you think the success rate of a neurosurgeon performing blindfolded, with his hands tied behind his back only using stone tools guided by his teeth would be?

Well this explains why you have so much trouble understanding what I'm saying. I almost feel sorry for you...

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenophobe

Instead of saying "You don't know" you're saying "It's not possible".

Show me where I've said that. Please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenophobe

So basically you disbelieve everything until you're told it's the truth and depending on what time frame you actually existed on this Earth you'd believe it was flat, that we were the center of the universe, or the center of the galaxy, or even the center of the solar system, or unique and alone as cognizant beings in the universe. The fact is, we do not yet know if it's possible to retrieve DNA from very old specimens... especially with current technology only that we have not yet done it.

I understand what you're saying. And my stance is simple.

If you want to tell me that extracting DNA from a million year old fossil is possible, show me that it is. Then I will believe you. Same for the cosmic teapot and the invisible pink unicorn that lives in my parent's garage.

EDIT:

If you wish to have an actual exchange, drop the ad hominem attacks. If you wish to continue acting like a child, I'll just add you to my ignore list.

Only if god's will to give you measles, mumps, and rubella and irresponsible parents not to give you those vacines before your 2 years old, then yes it is bad to play god . Science is evil and you can't spell science w/o half the letters in evil